absolutelyrad

Either be ultra wealthy or be a handsom man with a pretty woman if you want a son who wont be disadvantaged in the modern world.

LOL!

FYI, a LOT of the critical components in ASML come from the US. There's no one country that can make the latest tech end-to-end relying on it's self. China seems to be trying, but it'll be inefficient.

America has the image built. China doesn't. It's behind. China will open when their culture is at a similar standing to the US.

Of course the image built is breaking down now, but it's still ahead of the Chinese one.

It's intentional to force websites to move to their CDN or atleast use a CDN with anycast and prevent you from making your own CDN like you could cheaply before (spinning up DO droplets and doing loadbalancing with geo DNS).

It's just there so you can awe developers at the breath of services AWS provides.

Wait until it's 2 or 3m, then live frugally. There is no clear indication on the future value of the dollar or other currencies for that matter.

Save and spend as little as possible. If you don't have a kids and wife, don't spend on useless things. You don't have any responsibilities so just be happy.

The trend seems to be reversing the previous decade though: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/why-are-highly-educat...

Their optoelectronics/optics tech is getting to the state of the art in a short period by their pace of progress from the rumors that I heard.

I'd wager 3-4 years before they have EUV themselves while avoiding conflict supply chain. Not 10 years time as you say.

They got some of the best minds on the planet working, so I wouldn't think that they cannot achieve it rather quick.

Zeiss and ASML are going to have real competition soon.

As the ecosystem grows, the cost of switching increases. Therefore market starts acting more and more inefficiently.

This is why countries have state intervention in such cases. And anti trust exists.

If the option was a mac with privacy vs a mac without privacy but $10 cheaper, I'd think the market would pick the mac with privacy. No such choice within the budget exists, and if a company has a monopoly on the ecosystem, then the market cannot react when held hostage. The cost to transition to a different ecosystem is thousands of $'s when you've been using a mac your entire life. It's not like you'd want to relearn many things when you get older, perhaps the sunk cost fallacy as many would define it.

It's a bundled deal, it's not like you can pick the parts you like and throw away the ones you don't like it would be in an efficient market.

If even someone like me cannot be bothered to move to more privacy friendly platforms, then I don't have hope for other people. It's just not worth it. Until the majority face the consequences of their apathy, any action you take is fruitless. Let them taste the pain, then offer the solution.

I know I can be tracked. So what? I can't verify the silicon in my device, can I? Gotta trust someone, maybe blockchain will solve the problem of trust among humans, in a verifiable way.

There is just too much that could go wrong here.

I would be positively shocked if this thing works. I'd have to rethink a lot of things I hold an opinion on.

Maybe they figured out some advanced materials science we don't know about, but that seems unlikely from this article.

> Over the next few years, the team ran hundreds of high-speed tests. Most of them were to study and improve the system, but some were to mollify skeptical investors and potential customers who didn’t believe a payload could withstand the extreme forces. The team sent solar cells, radio systems, telescope lenses, batteries, GPS modules, and control computers whirling at high speeds; they all survived with little to no damage. In one test, Yaney attached an iPhone to the tether and spun it up until it experienced forces 10,000 times stronger than gravity. Afterward, he used the phone to FaceTime a colleague. Each test was a step, however small, toward space.

Something tells me that an iPhone definitely cannot withstand forces of 10,000g.

Like someone below said, this either has mil implications or a way to separate investors from their money.

Juan Alonso, an aerospace engineer at Stanford who did due diligence for one of SpinLaunch’s investors, understood my reservations. “It's an exotic technology, and the first time you hear about it you think there's no way that could possibly work,” he says. But after checking out the math himself, Alonso gave the investment firm the green light.

So a Stanford guy is putting reputation on stake. Interesting.

It is yet to be seen if China can reach the developed country status, which would require dethroning the dollar as the world reserve currency. However, just because China has been successful in the past doesn't mean it will be able to achieve this feat.

The average annual net income of impoverished people in these nine counties has risen to 11,487 yuan (about $1,740)

I'd long Intel, it is over sold.

It's not that straight forward.

But an over simplified answer would be the population pyramid. Tax base shrinks, more tax burden on working class people.

Then the other problem is that the global birth sex ratios. The natural sex ratio at birth is 105 men for 100 women. When a population is growing, this isn't much of a problem in monogamous societies, and everyone finds a partner (men marry younger women on average).

When the population is under decline, there is extreme pressure on men and in a perfectly monogamous society, 10% of men are definitely going to be left behind.

If we can some how genetically modify humans so that the sex ratios come near 1/1 or 0.95 men to 1 woman, it'll be easier to survive a decline in population and men wont be impacted as much. A growing population favors almost no one, not men, not women. A declining population means that men are the unfavored sex.

The end result could be large male foeticide instead of female foeticide 50 years down the line. I myself plan to not have sons but daughters because daughters are almost guaranteed to reproduce in future and abortion is a human right.

Therefore the right way to sustain a decline in population would be an engineering of birth ratios across the world so that a decline in population isn't too harsh on some people.

The goal of money is power (supporting causes you favor etc) and access to better mates. When there aren't enough mates to go by, people will get exhausted and start giving up. It's going to be a permanent burnout as more people become aware of what the future holds.

There's a way that even during a declining global population to sustainable levels, people remain happy. It might be unpopular, but it needs to be done. A new order.

When the population doesn't increase as fast or starts shrinking, there is going to be emotional unhappiness. I know why, but the subject is sensitive to be discussed openly.

The other option for increasing happiness is manipulation of the birth rates/ratios with mandatory genetic modification/engineering. Then people will be more satisfied, while having a shrinking population across the world.

Growth in populations masks many problems therefore results in happiness. A decline in population increases unhappiness and exaggerates a problem.

But the problem is that a larger and larger percentage of population isn't going to get their needs met when the population starts shrinking across the world. There needs to be a mandatory global order for genetic modification.

They promised that the tech would always give a stable and unique id from the browser. And it worked too, but it wasn't public and not for ad tech purposes.

The other reason is that the US corporations have managed to capture a large pie of the value created by the internet.